On ABC-TV's QandA you both rejected a question from a female scientist. I would like to repeat a similar question to you and for you to answer it on your web sites.

The IPCC and other scientific bodies have determined the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is 1/27th of 1%.

My Questions to you both are:

Did you know how little man made CO2 is in the air?

Why did both of you reject a question which was stating facts?

It was like saying we reject that the earth revolves around the sun or rejecting that rain is H2O.

Do you have better information on the gaseous make up of the atmosphere?

If you do please give us the details on your web site. If either of you do not explain yourself on your web sites I will take it that you have little knowledge of precisely what a CO2 tax or ETS or Direct Action will (or will not) do.

And by the way - If Australia reduces its CO2 emissions by 5% (changing the air composition by 1/1,000,000th of 1%) will you be able to look everyone in the eye who loses their jobs, in the process that you had checked out the facts without prejudice and to the best of your ability?

Greg Hunt has since correctly replied to this email that CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 380 ppm since the 1800s. However it seems he hasn`t quite worked out that those are small numbers (e.g. a rise of 100 parts per million or 1 part in 10,000).
Of the 380 ppm only 13 ppm will be manmade.
Of that only 0.2 ppm will be Australias contribution
Of that only 0.01 ppm will be reduced by our carbon tax or ETS

Don`t trust me - check the Maths for yourself.

Leon Ashby
Recipient of the Centenary Medal for services to Conservation and the Environment

The preceding anonymous comment has all the hallmarks and incorrect grammar of Ross Brisbane.

(see - I suggest you would do far of worth for the community then get caught up on this band wagon of climate denial.)

Ross' understanding of the science is very questionablequestionable - see his contributions to Peter Laux' $10K challenge in Mid December - http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/10k-climate-challenge.html

Ross, you are a denier - the science has moved on.AGW has been falsified.

Pass on commentary. Clearly Leon Ashby does NOT understand the science or good mathematics.

First Question: To what extent are humans and their combustion of fossil fuels responsible for the current increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

According to the U.S. DOE, each year humans are producing 31 billion tons of CO through the combustion of fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas).

Since the late 1950's spectroscopists at the Mauna Loa observatory have been collecting data on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The plot of these data, as ppm vs. time, is known as the Keeling Curve.

The Keeling Curve nicely fits a second-order polynomial:

ppm = 1.054 10 + 9.00 10 + 315.5 where x = (yr 1960). The fit yields an average deviation of 0.2 ppm.which is the increase in 0.1 year. The data are given on slide 43. This equation yields the slope: 1.7 ppm/yr in 2010.

This slope was used to find the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere in tons per year.Mass of CO2/yr = ppm/yr 10 atmospheric pressureis entering the atmosphere at a rate of 15 billion tons per year.

Thus there is a net addition to the atmosphere of CO2 per year as a result of all 15 billion tons 31 billion metric sources and sinks - compare this with the produced by humans burning fossil fuels.

Thus the straightforward response of scienceto the denier's claim that humans cannot have animpact on something as large as the earth is that the rate production of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is twice the rate at which it is entering the atmosphere.

So, Ross, does the Keeling curve distinguish between man-made CO2 emissions and natural emissions? Do you know about the complete failure of all climate scientists – and their cheerleaders in the media – to investigate the relationship between the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa (the mountain in Hawaii which is the official source of the IPCC’s data on atmospheric CO2) and temperatures at Mauna Loa.

The exceptionally inconvenient truth is that there is no correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperatures when both are measured at Mauna Loa.

Sort of puts the rest of your cut and paste post in doubt, doesn't it, Ross?

It most certainly does when natural sinks and natural releases of the carbon cycle are taken into the accounting and quantum. The remaining free CO2 can be calculated and proven accurate over 50 to 60 year time frames and backed by the empirical measuring instruments and their expected MODELING results.

We move on then into quantifying the radiative forcing known in the laws of physics established by the effects of the greenhouse effect.

The two are separate and distinct. One is accurate measurement and the other is the effects that greenhouse extra gas make on the expected energy budget.

Correlation between temperature increases and greenhouse gases increases are then measurable and based on quantum physics within the bounds of radiative forcing effect. Calculations are then done on the energy budget of the earth of well known greenhouse gases such as CO2 and its extra positive contribution to watts per square of captured energy through spectral analysis.

It is basic science. It is based on the physical consequence of extra greenhouse gas concentrations that remain free in the atmosphere.

The exceptionally inconvenient truth is that there is no correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperatures when both are measured at Mauna Loa.

Sort of puts the rest of your cut and paste post in doubt, doesn't it, Ross?

The lack of correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperatures when both are measured at Mauna Loa falsifies the hypothesis that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming.

There is simple comparison that proves to one with a thinking cap concerning CO2 LAG.

Temperatures are correlated to global warming under a atmosphere with CO2 free at the variability rates of 200 ppm - ICE AGE territory and 280ppm - non-ice age epochs.

However the problem we now face is beyond the 280ppm and now 390ppm plus - such conditions of sustained CO2 levels are indicated to be millions of years ago.

It is then foolish to argue that this 380ppm level is healthy. Based of what we know we will go beyond 380ppm very easily and into ranges of free CO2 beyond anything the earth has ever experienced in the modern evolution of man in such an environment. We can only guess at to its lag effect in 500 years time. We the present generation may be the generation that passed the plate to future generations to mop up the mess of our indulgence of our climate change denial created.

Ross, where do you get your garbage? What is your substantiation that 380ppmv is unhealthy?Why do you deniers always make unsubstantiate statements and pretend that they are facts.How can you explain the lack of correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperatures when both are measured at Mauna Loa?

Second Question: What is the role of triatomic molecules (man generated burning of fossil fuels generating CO2 gases) in the atmosphere in the earth’s energy balance?

The answer to this question requires a discussion of the earth’s energy balance.

The average net flux of energy from the sun at the earth's surface is 239 Wm Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Over a year the energy coming into the earth from the sun equals the energy emitted to the cosmos, therefore 5.67 10 T 239 W m which yields T = 255 K for the average temperature ofthe earth.

In reality the average temperature is 288 K (59 F). This is because greenhouse gases redirect some of the outgoing energy back to the earth's surface. As a result of absorption by greenhouse gases of the upward flux of radiation from the earth and the subsequent non-directonal loss of the abosrbed energy, 151 W m of the outgoing infrared flux is redirected back towardthe earth.

The greenhouse effect deniers would have us believe, because the greenhouse gas concentrations are measured in ppm, that the greenhouse energies are of no consequence. Note that the total average energy coming into the world is 390 W m and that coming in from the greenhouse gases is 151 W m i.e. 38.7 % of our incoming energy is from absorption and redirection by greenhouse gases (which compose of triatomic molecules).

"How can you explain the lack of correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperatures when both are measured at Mauna Loa?

Geoff if we went out to Marble Bar and measured atmospheric CO2 and compared that to the temperature at noon in the middle of summer, then that would be just as idiotic as what you are claiming as a meaningfull correlation, FFS

You say: "Geoff if we went out to Marble Bar and measured atmospheric CO2 and compared that to the temperature at noon in the middle of summer, then that would be just as idiotic as what you are claiming as a meaningfull correlation..."

John, you are very good at the flick pass. What has that to do with day-by-day measurements of temperatures at Mauna Loa averaged over an 11 year period.

You accept the Mauna Loa CO2 record. Why don't you (and the corrupt climategate/cru/ipcc mob) examine the temperature records recorded at Mauna Loa?

Geoff Manua Loa measures atmospheric CO2 levels which fairly equates to global levels, like Marble Bar, Manua loa does not measure global temperature,When a large amount of the temp stns closed down you all complained, now you want to reduce global temp measurements to one stn, Manua Loa,

Manua Loa does show warming however as do most other areas of the planet ,

Overall, at Mauna Loa Observatory, there is a mean warming trend of 0.021 °C y−1. The dominance of night-time warming results in a relatively large annual decrease in the diurnal temperature range (DTR) of −0.050 °C y−1. These trends are consistent with the observed increases in the concentrations of CO2 and its role as a greenhouse gas, and indicate the possible relevance of the Mauna Loa temperature measurements to global warming.

John Byatt says: "Manua loa does not measure global temperature..." As I said to your disjunctive mate, Ross, Mauna Loa is a volcano and doesn't measure anything. It is people who do the measurements, John. I hope you understand that.You are in denier mode again when you infer that temperatures are not measured at Mauna Loa.

See http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtavt.pl?himaun

There is a complete failure of all climate scientists – and their cheerleaders in the media – to investigate the relationship between the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa (the mountain in Hawaii which is the official source of the IPCC’s data on atmospheric CO2) and temperatures at Mauna Loa.

See: AGW a falsified hypothesis.

THe game is over. How many times do you think a hypothesis needs to be falsified?

The K&T diagram does not give 238.5/239 "average net flux of energy from the sun at the Earth's surface using the Stephan-Boltzman's law" as you cut and pasted; SB for starters measures emissivity not flux and the flux from either the 1997 or 2008 K&T cartoon is as follows: firstly the 1997 K&T cartoon:

http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/colloquia/080430.htm

Now 323W/m2 of backradiation or DLW sounds impressive but when you reduce it to a net surface flux the figures become interesting; the 2008 K&T cartoon differs slightly from their 1997 one; a comparison of the net fluxes between the 2 versions is instructive; in the 1997 version the NET fluxes from the Surface are:a. Direct Radiation “through the window” to Space is 40W/m^2.b. Fluxes into the Atmosphere:(1) Evaporated Water Vapour, 78W/m^2(2) NET Radiation, 26W/m^2(3) Conduction, 24W/m^2

The 2008 K&T cartoon gives a NET upward radiation flux from the surface of 33w/m2 with a downward adjustment to water vapour to 76w/m2 and conduction to 16w/m2 but the point holds; that point is more net heat is leaving the surface through methods other than radiation, particularly water; that to me means 2 things; water is a dominant mover of heat compared to CO2 and the sun’s 168/166 w/m2 is a far more dominant heater than CO2 backradiation.

Anonymous Anthony seems to be getting off track here regarding the original post, seeing that he has a complete understanding of the science then he might like to put the gist of this into a letter and send it to the Gympie Times, one of the few newspapers that allows full open debate,

Anthony you deserve a broader audience,

here is the info to whack into a letter

"Greg Hunt has since correctly replied to this email that CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 380 ppm since the 1800s. However it seems he hasn`t quite worked out that those are small numbers (e.g. a rise of 100 parts per million or 1 part in 10,000).Of the 380 ppm only 13 ppm will be manmade.Of that only 0.2 ppm will be Australias [SIC] contributionOf that only 0.01 ppm will be reduced by our carbon tax or ETS"

John Byatt, fighting for the future against the scourge of AGW. I sleep sound at night knowing you're on the job. Now I want you to put your vast intellect to pinpointing the fault with this argument about how much humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 levels.

Currently the increase in CO2 is about 1/2 of the emissions in human CO2, ACO2. For this to happen CO2 sinks must be expanding to absorb 1/2 the ACO2. But this ignores 2 things:

1 Sinks may be expanding at a greater rate than ACO2 in which case natural CO2 will also be contributing.2 The above is confirmed by this paper:

This paper shows that the % of ACO2 in the atmosphere has stayed the same despite increases in ACO2 and CO2 so ACO2 cannot be responsible for the entire increase in CO2 levels.

This can be demonstrated quite easily, the principle is a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 20% of CO2 which is 100, so ACO2 is 20; when CO2 is 200 ACO2′s 20% will be 40 so other CO2 has contributed 60; at 300, ACO2 is 60, other is 140 and so on; natural CO2 must be contributing to the increase in total CO2 and sinks must be expanding more than the increase in ACO2.

MY REPLY: (in part)You are in denier mode again when you infer that temperatures are not measured at Mauna Loa.

See http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtavt.pl?himaun

There is a complete failure of all climate scientists – and their cheerleaders in the media – to investigate the relationship between the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa (the mountain in Hawaii which is the official source of the IPCC’s data on atmospheric CO2) and temperatures at Mauna Loa.

See: AGW a falsified hypothesis.

John, have you apologised for making a FALSE statement? Was it from ignorance or was it to confuse others ( as in most of your gympie times letters)

There is a complete failure of all climate scientists to investigate the relationship between the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa and temperatures at Mauna Loa.

See: AGW a falsified hypothesis.

The Game is over, John. The hypothesis has been falsified many times, but it inly needs once.

Anthony, I agree that the maintenance of the airborne fraction and the long tail of atmospheric CO2 dropping after human emissions reach zero is counter intuitive for the understanding of us mere mortals,

A good understanding of the processes involved can to obtained from this RC post and comment discussion,not from jo nova,

Yes anonypus, we see this a lot; authors of 'peer' reviewed papers who have to put an AGW consistent disclaimer in their papers which otherwise contradict the paper's anti-AGW conclusion or publically declare that AGW is still the great moral issue of our time despite there not being a scintilla of evidence for it.

Surely people should have realised that AGW was a complete farce when we were told that graziers might soon have to pay a tax for their cattle to burp and flatulate. As I imagined the look on our old pioneers' faces, I laughed so much that tears streamed down my face, and I felt sick with cold chills for 2 days!

Popular Posts

This alarmist propaganda goes against the real data. Penn State Professor Michael Mann has made similar claims of modern temperatures being the warmest, but such “Hockey Stick” temperature claims have been demolished in the scientific literature.

Opinion by Anthony Cox
I wrote before about the ABC’s bias and the real
cost of the ABC to the Australian community. Since then the Abbott
government has announced reasonable budget cuts but the ABC has sunk further
into its betrayal of its Charter and of the Australian community.
In a recent poll about the farcical China/US deal about
emissions the ABC’s The Drum initially showed this result: 12/11/2014: China and the US have struck a new deal to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Do you think Australia will need to adjust its climate change policies as a result? No 55% Yes 44% Unsure 1%

15205 votes counted
Given the ABC’s Left/Green readership a remarkable result.
However shortly the result
was changed to this: 12/11/2014: China and the US have struck a new deal to limit greenhouse gas
emissions. Do you think Australia will need to adjust its climate change
policies as a result?Yes 76% No 23% Unsure 1% 6001
votes counted
How could you trust an organisation which lies like that and
distorts public …